I suspect Leica's business model is deliberately to make most of their products unaffordable for most. That high price, coupled with an undoubted level of quality of course, is what makes Leica attractive to some.

Given the very low volumes that Leica produces, they probably have got the balance about right in terms of price and volume. Assume an M9 sold for say 30% less, would Leica really be able to sell significantly more of them? I rather doubt it.

But then an M9 or 240 is unique, sort of. You either get it or you don't but at least it sits in a position in the market where it doesn't really have any competition, not from other cameras anyway. The real difficulty for Leica is in making a product at 'affordable' prices that is of interest to new buyers and to people who want a camera as a picture making tool as opposed to buying into a kind of legend. Once you introduce a product that in terms of functionality competes head on with Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. it can only command a certain price premium based on the perceived additional level of quality and the Leica name. And the question then is whether that price premium can be sufficient to generate enough profit with the relatively tiny volumes that Leica are able to make and therefore sell. And if the product is simply a badge engineered Panasonic then how many people will be prepared to pay extra for it in any case?